Disposed

Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2023WRIA/20263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a suspension order alleging dual employment, the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with the suspension due to the nature of allegations. However, the Court directed that the departmental enquiry be concluded within two months and the petitioner allowed subsistence allowance pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Suspension order not interfered with; direction to conclude enquiry within two months; order for subsistence allowance.

Mahesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237465

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20263 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Tirpathi Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Saurabh, the learned Standing Counsel, who appears for Respondents.

¶7

Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Chief Secretary, Technical Education, Government of U.P., placing the writ petitioner under suspension, on the ground that despite being working as Lecturer (Pharmacy), in Government Polytechnic, Lakhimpur Khiri he was working as Country Manager in Cambodia.

¶8

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there are umpteen number of complaints lodged by his wife and at one stage enquiry was also conducted wherein it was opined that it is an internal family dispute between the husband and wife and in this regard, he seeks to rely upon Annexure-3 at Page-20 being a document dated 11.11.2020. There is no averment in the writ petition with regard to the fact that what was the position of the writ petitioner with respect to the period, which was shown to be in Cambodia, when he was already appointed and was entrusted duty as a Lecturer (Pharmacy) in the Government Polytechnic.

¶9

Since the nature of the allegations are such that this Court does not find it proper in the facts of the case to interfere with the suspension order. However, that does not mean that the respondents shall prolong the enquiry as obviously enquiry is to be conducted and concluded within a reasonable time.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the opinion that the suspension order dated 16.10.2023 needs no interference. However, the respondents are directed to get the enquiry concluded within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order and the writ petitioner shall be made admissible to payment of subsistence allowance subject to the rules. The time frame so stipulated by this Court is

¶11

of course subject to the cooperation of the writ petitioner in the enquiry proceeding.

¶12

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed off .

¶13

Order Date :- 15.12.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶14

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Suresh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Siwal @ Ishmeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Suman Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhimsen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Daya Shankar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others